There has been more and more evidence shown by very recent research, probably not translated into English, that Reynaud was actually not that adamant about fighting on.
The "legend" of Reynaud being the inflexible supporter of opposing Hitler has been questioned a lot and it seems that most of it really is a legend, not much of it based on reality.

I know of the proposal to ask for the armistice terms to see how reasonable they would be but the proposition really was quite stupid. You see, you don't ask for terms, reject them and keep on fighting. Once the French asked for terms they were bound to make an armistice.

Besides, the Germans did not stop their advance during the negotiations. So the longer the negotiations took the worse their position got.

In military terms you could say it was stupid, but you should not forget the political struggles and agenda behind this decision.
And the process of asking for an Armistice was not a linear event.
The first time it was mentioned was late May, then early June its supporters managed to push and almost convince everyone else.
The French HC then asked for a last stand in the hope it would gain at least a small "advantage" during future negociations.
Everyone expected this last hard fought resistance to last a couple of days at best and they were actually hoping it would be short, so that they could go on with the Armistice proposal.
But from 5th June, French resistance stiffened and against all odds, the remaining troops fought like lions and held their ground.
If you look at casualty figures, daily casualties were higher (about double) between 5th June and 22nd June than before the 5th, on both French and German sides.
This unexpected resistance put the French government in an unstable position as some people began to hope and weren't so keen on supporting the idea of Armistice proposals.

The worst "mistake" of this campaign was Pétain's address to the nation and troops on 17th June, mentioning an Armistice and asking them to cease fighting, even though the French Government hadn't sent ANYTHING to the Germans yet.
The next day the press and radio published an amended version of the address where the words mentioning to stop fighting were changed so that the misunderstanding was clarified but it was too late, the moral effect had already been catastrophic in 24h.
I personally suspect it was not a "mistake" but a calculated move to get everything over with and open the door more quickly to the new political era embodied by Vichy, Pétain being the iconic figure used for the people to swallow the whole thing more easily.

Regarding the military career of Monsieur De Gaulle and in spite of his massive propagandistic leader cult (largely self-promoted) as usual facts speak louder than words.
The objective military facts here couldn't have been any more eloquent.
Period.

An obviousness entirely unrelated with his well attested impressive political abilities

De Gaulle propaganda in UK. What a nonsense. But samhow I'm not surprised.
Sylla, this is a History Forum, not literary contest. You tend to use a lot of words but you sy nothing of value. Same kind of today's newspeak? Period

De Gaulle propaganda in UK. What a nonsense. But samhow I'm not surprised.
Sylla, this is a History Forum, not literary contest. You tend to use a lot of words but you sy nothing of value. Same kind of today's newspeak? Period

Edward, I don't see what is wrong with saying that De Gaulle used propaganda to reach his military and political goals.
All leaders do it, Churchill being one of the best.
Propaganda is an important and inevitable weapon in wartime.
Look at how Churchill managed to instil the famed "Blitz Spirit" into the British population almost on his own and through his own determination and character, whilst being in an extremely difficult political situation.
That was a masterpiece of propaganda which ensured that appeasers and supporters of compromise with Germany were out of the game and wouldn't hinder his determination to keep on fighting.

Edward, I don't see what is wrong with saying that De Gaulle used propaganda to reach his military and political goals.
All leaders do it, Churchill being one of the best.
Propaganda is an important and inevitable weapon in wartime.
Look at how Churchill managed to instil the famed "Blitz Spirit" into the British population almost on his own and through his own determination and character, whilst being in an extremely difficult political situation.
That was a masterpiece of propaganda which ensured that appeasers and supporters of compromise with Germany were out of the game and wouldn't hinder his determination to keep on fighting.

De Gaulle propaganda could have same influence in France. But not in UK, where de Gaulle was rather unpopular during the War and after. So any positive testimony coming from British professional soldiers certainly was not affected by de Gaulle propaganda, but by de Gaulle merits.

De Gaulle propaganda in UK. What a nonsense. But samhow I'm not surprised.
Sylla, this is a History Forum, not literary contest. You tend to use a lot of words but you sy nothing of value. Same kind of today's newspeak? Period

De Gaulle propaganda could have same influence in France. But not in UK, where de Gaulle was rather unpopular during the War and after. So any positive testimony coming from British professional soldiers certainly was not affected by de Gaulle propaganda, but by de Gaulle merits.

Such preposterous categorical statement couldn't be any more ridiculous to the Nth degree.

The objective impact of the personal cult of Monsieur De Gaulle as ruler of France couldn't have been any more evident and easy to verify all along the former WW2 Allies.

Not to mention within the same British Empire that had unilaterally sponsored his early career as leader of the Free French Forces for years.

Not to mention within the same British Empire that had unilaterally sponsored his early career as leader of the Free French Forces for years.

Britain only supported him and sponsored him so long as they figured that the Vichy French would rapidly leave Petain's service and join De Gaulle, making Britain's war easier...

Which means that after Dakar, De Gaulle was no longer useful to the British cause and they dumped him as quickly as they could. You'll also notice is that when the Americans began looking to Darlan and Giroud as possible leaders of the Free French (both politically and militarily) Churchill didn't remind Eisenhower that De Gaulle was the Free French political leader... at least not in any way that would persuade Ike from trying to get De Gaulle out of the war.

Britain fought a very pragmatic war, especially after the Battle of France. They fought to preserve British interests as best they could. And this revolved around more issues then De Gaulle and the Free French.